Hi everybody! By now all the cards in Oath have been revealed, and while there are definitely a few that intrigue me, this time I’m going to be talking about Warping Wail and the impact I think it could make in Modern.

Warping the format

Let me lead off by saying this: I think Warping Wail is a stronger card than it’s given credit for. Let’s look at the card and I’ll go over its three modes one at a time. Warping Wail is an instant that costs 1 and a colorless mana (if you don’t know what that means exactly, there are plenty of articles out there explaining the new distinction) and says choose one:

Initially, I thought this would be a great card against Affinity. This mode hits all but 2 of their creatures at their basic stats, including Ink and Blinkmoth Nexus. After a bit of thought though, this mode has a wide range of decks it has use against. What gives it such utility is the all-important “or” between power and toughness. This mode hits every creature in U/R Twin, barring the Pia and Kiran Nalar in the sideboard, as well as every pre-pump creature in U/G Infect. I’ll let that sink in for a minute….back now? Good. You read correct. This card can exile virtually every creature in 2 of the boogeyman decks of the format. Seems to me that may come in handy.

On the flip side, it also misses a good amount of creatues as well. It doesn’t hit many of the creatures in Abzan, Burn, Tron, or Amulet Bloom, to name a few. Not a minor knock against it, however when metagamed properly this mode will be backbreaking.

“Counter target sorcery spell”

For decks that either don’t want to run blue or can’t due to color requirements any spell that has the words “counter target” should be taken into consideration. The first spell that came to my mind when I saw this was Scapeshift. Giving a nonblue deck a way to counter it definitely opens up some options. Granted, Scapeshift as a deck has seen a decrease in play lately, but decks in Modern go through cycles, and I have no doubt it will make a resurgence again.

The biggest drawback to this mode is, of course, that it doesn’t hit anything other than sorceries. Instants, Enchantments, Creatures, Planeswalkers, etc... There are easily more flexible counterspells available; most of them would require you to play some amount of blue to have access to them. Not having to splash/play blue while having access to a counter of sorts should at least be considered.

While I think this will be the least used mode of the 3, it still has a lot of utility. The ability to create a surprise blocker that gets around “protection from x color” requirements at instant speed and/or give a quick jolt of mana ramp definitely has application in a variety of decks. At the very least, you can cast it at the end of your opponent’s turn to apply some form of pressure to their life total on an empty board.

That being said, ultimately you’re still just getting a 1/1.If your deck wants to make a 1/1 of some type, they are either going to be Goblins so you can go wide or Spirit tokens with flying so you can have chump blockers (or just apply evasive pressure). A single 1/1 with no evasion doesn’t seem like an ideal return on mana. A surprise blocker is still a surprise blocker though, and the fact it’s colorless will be relevant more times than you’d initially think.

Wailing, Wailing, over the bounding main (phase)

Ultimately, what I feel is probably what makes this card even remotely playable in Modern is that word to the left under the artwork. That word is “Instant”. Modern can be a very fast-paced format. Try as Wizards might, turn 2 kills, while not consistent or rampant, do exist. Even if we go with what Wizards wants Modern to be, a turn 4 format, that’s still a measly 4 turns. Compare that to Standard, where games on average go much longer. Now, I’m not saying every game of Modern is over in 4 turns or less. There are some that easily go to time, turns, and beyond. The ability to do “something” on your opponent’s turn cannot be emphasized enough in Modern. Unless you are a very proactive deck such as Abzan or the Rock you will be trying to accomplish part of your deck’s plan during your opponent’s turn.

All’s Wail that ends Wail

I think it’s safe to say that many decks try to win during their main phase, but only after they have achieved some form of ideal condition by playing spells on their opponent’s turn. It could be getting a key counter out of the opponent’s hand, or finding the last piece of their combo. Or, in the case of a couple lesser played decks, winning outright. The fact remains that the more you can do on your opponent’s turn to tie up either mana or resources so yours are free on your turn the greater chance you’ll have to accomplish what your deck is trying to do.

Warping Wail won’t be a format defining card. There isn’t any one thing in particular that it does that other similar cards can do just as well. What Warping Wail can do is provide some new options for decks that wouldn’t normally have access to these type of effects, or in some cases provide key additional copies of these effects. I certainly think it would benefit any deck that can reasonably have access to some colorless mana to put in some testing with this card.

That's all for this one! Hope you enjoyed, and as always, questions, comments, etc....are always appreciated!

Yes, you read that correctly, this is a unicorn deck. I would like to point out that I didn't build this deck out of any particular love for unicorns. I'm no brony (is that what theyre called?) My idea was to bring ultimate humiliation to my opponents. I mean most people have been owned by squirrels, but who cares? Uniorns are supposed to be fluffy and nice. Not my unicorns. They have been likened to "roided out horses with a cocaine addiction" Take a look.

The ideal is to basically do a brute buff of all my unicorns and swing for win. Prized Unicorn/ Noble Quarry pull all blockers and with gorgons head they kill them all. Lethal damage comes from the rest of my "roided out" unicorns. It plays well and pulls a lot of hate in my playgroup. I just like the idea of telling people they got owned by unicorns

I'd like to start this off by stating some things that I think should be fairly obvious.

First, the goal in playing Magic the Gathering is to win. Yes, some may correct me and restate this as "to have fun". But who enjoys losing? If we are being honest with ourselves, who builds a deck specifically to lose? Maybe a few kitchen table players, or players who are simply trying to be contrary. For the most part, however, anyone who is actually interested in playing even a semi-competitive game is looking to win. If the people who "don't care about winning" actually don't care about winning, then why do they complain about not being able to interact in a relevant enough manner to make winning possible? The truth is that if they didn't care about winning, they shouldn't be complaining about losing.

Second, Magic the Gathering is an engineering game at heart. We, the deckbuilders and players, are using the options given to us by Wizards of the Coast and constructing decks that, usually, fulfill a win state. The more efficient the deck is at achieving that purpose, the more likely it is going to win.

The most efficient way for a deck to achieve that state is often by making it so that the opponent(s) cannot interact with our plans to the degree that they might disrupt them. Allowing the opponent to interact in a meaningful manner is the surest way to give the opponent the game. That's the purpose of them attempting to interact with the gamestate. Even competitive decks that "allow" the opponent the opportunity to interact are only doing so to the degree that the interaction is as meaningless as possible.

There are a number of ways of reducing the opponent's ability to interact. One may build a deck which has the goal of winning before the opponent can interact in a meaningful way. These are often extremely quick combo, burn, or aggro decks. Another is to use spells that delay an opponent's meaningful interactions, often using countermagic like Remand. They typically try to land an early threat and attempt to restrict any meaningful interaction on the opponent's behalf until the threat has won them the game. There is the "midrange" method, by which, even through interaction, the opponent is slowly bleeding card advantage. These often employ discard spells that remove interactive cards and other cards that ensure that any interaction is in favor of the pilot of the midrange deck. Prison decks attempt to restrict interaction via denial of resources, like mana (often through increasing mana requirements or land destruction) or relevant cards (as is the case of Lantern Control).

In the world of chess, what type of player finds fault in their opponent for not "allowing" them to interact meaningfully? Is the opponent called a "net-opener" for studying opening strategies online? It, like Magic, is a competitive and strategic game in which meaningful interaction usually leads to securing a win. Are opponents accused of "bad sportsmanship" for not allowing others to meaningfully interact?

Each time that the opponent is allowed to interact in a meaningful manner, that opponent is given an opportunity to put interaction in his or her favor. Not allowing them this relevant interaction isn't necessarily being a "bad sport". We can have good sportsmanship while winning by just not bragging or rubbing it in. Sometimes an opponent will get unlucky with their shuffle and just not draw the cards he or she needs to interact in a meaningful way. So long as there's been no dishonest shuffling techniques, this isn't anyone's fault (assuming that he or she shuffled their own deck sufficiently). Other times an opponent cannot interact because their deck choice happens to be inferior in that particular matchup. It could be their own fault, choosing to play a strictly inferior deck in that meta, or maybe they just got unlucky and paired up against a minority deck that happens to be built in such a way that interaction was just not going to happen.

While there are cards in each format's cardpool that may seem "oppressive", so long as the metagame isn't warped to the degree where each player is forced to play either that specific deck archetype (or a deck specifically designed to beat it), then there is likely a way to interact meaningfully. Even in that warped meta, there are usually options available to the builders and pilots for meaningful interaction. They may not like it, but it likely exists.

So maybe there's a card in the format's cardpool that simply removes our ability to interact. Is it so oppressive that every single other deck archetype loses to it as well? If not, why are they not affected? Maybe we can learn how to adjust our strategies to maybe incorporate those strengths and resilience into our own decks or strategies. With the larger cardpools, there are probably cards that are capable of doing that. If that isn't something that we are comfortable with, then maybe it's time to switch to a format that we feel safer and more comfortable in.

But resorting to knee-jerk reactions and emotional appeals for ways to "fix the format" are likely going to do nothing but attract like-minded, close-minded individuals. Even if these suggestions are adopted, this will not fix the root problem. The root problem is that those who have these knee-jerk reactions and emotional appeals are refusing to acknowledge that there are likely answers already available. They may not like them, but they don't have to like them. If the suggestions are adopted, and cards are banned or unbanned, or any other similar suggestion is incorporated, then all that will happen is that these people will simply find new targets to find blame with - Targets other than their own inability to consider that maybe they could do some work and learn how to adapt, rather than try to force the game to adapt to them. The targets will shift and evolve, and eventually, if these people have their way, they will have formed a game or format that is designed to allow them to win without learning or changing strategies. This is not a path of growth, for themselves or for the game. Ironically, these methods are an attempt to force others to play according to "their rules", where others are not allowed to interact in a way that they deem "unacceptable".